07.06.06
Gays Can’t Marry in NY Because…They Are Better Parents?
The New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) came down with a disappointing, though not entirely unexpected, opinion today, holding that denying same-sex couples the right to marry does not violate the state constitution. The majority opinion, finding that there could be a rational basis to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, stuck to the usual (crap) rhetoric about children benefiting from having two opposite-sex parents. It went on a long historical (crap) rambling about how denying same-sex couples the right to marry isn’t the same as denying couples of different races the right because, apparently, discrimination against homosexuals is relatively new, as compared to the ages-old discrimination based on race. None of this really surprises me, though it does sadden me.
What stood out to me was a passage in the concurring opinion that stated:
It is not irrational for the Legislature to provide an incentive for opposite-sex couples — for whom children may be conceived from casual, even momentary
intimate relationships — to marry, create a family environment, and support their children. Although many same-sex couples share these family objectives and are competently raising children in a stable environment, they are simply not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples in this regard given the intrinsic
differences in the assisted reproduction or adoption processes that most homosexual couples rely on to have children.
Soooo…because straight couples can get preggers in a bout of drunken irresponsibility and gay couples have to carefully plan to have kids, marriage should be reserved only to those who are shamed into a shotgun wedding because the little pee stick turned blue? And it should be denied to those who are responsible and patient enough to really plan to have and raise kids?
I can’t figure out if this is some sort of back-handed compliment to same-sex parents buried within a decision saying denying them rights isn’t unconstitutional.
James said,
July 7, 2006 at 4:03 pm
I’m not thrilled about the outcome of this case either, but I think you’re being a little unfair in your characterization. The Court of Appeals did not hold that heterosexual couples actually make better parents, or that children necessarily benefit from having a parent of each gender. It merely said that the legislature could reasonably have so determined, thus providing a rational basis for the distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the marriage law. Under rational basis review, as you are no doubt aware, that’s all that needs to be established. As much as I was hoping for a different outcome, I can’t really find fault with the Court’s reasoning on this one.
Administrator said,
July 7, 2006 at 5:28 pm
You are misinterpreting me. I am fully aware of the rational basis analysis, but it’s the concurring part seeming to suggest that SAME-SEX COUPLES make better parents and thus don’t necessarily need the protection of marriage that I am amused by.
ZPO said,
July 9, 2006 at 3:24 pm
I attempted to read the concurring opinion, but got lost in the circular logic.
It seems to come down to a holding that the state has a legitimate interest to differentiate between opposite-sex and same-sex marriage for a couple of reasons:
1) same-sex couples can’t accidentally have kids.
2) “common sense” says that opposite-sex couples are better parents. It almost sounds like the “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it” argument.
The whole opinion is fallacious at best.